Improving Learning for All Students Through Equity-Based Inclusive Reform Practices

Abstract

The present investigation examines the schoolwide applications model (SAM) as a potentially effective school reform model for increasing equity-based inclusive education practices while enhancing student reading and math achievement for all students. A 3-year quasi-experimental comparison group analysis using latent growth modeling (LGM) was used with seven urban elementary or elementary/middle schools and seven matched comparison schools in the same district. Results suggest significantly larger growth for experimental school students in math and no statistically significant difference in reading score growth between experimental and comparison schools. However, reading score growth for experimental schools was statistically significant in a post hoc analysis of selected schools. Additional descriptive analysis is presented for three schools that implemented the model with the highest measured fidelity; these schools made improvements on both reading and math scores while those of matching comparison schools decreased.

Achievement of Students With IEPs and Associated Relationships With an Inclusive MTSS Framework

“…The present study is a follow-up to previous research on the effectiveness of the SAM intervention to all students participating in the selected schools. Our earlier findings revealed that math score growth was significantly larger for students in SAM implementation schools than in comparison schools (Choi et al, 2017). Although no significant reading growth difference was observed between implementation and comparison groups, schools that implemented with the highest scores on a measure of fidelity made better improvements on both reading and math while scores of matched comparison schools actually decreased (Choi et al, 2017).…”

“…Our earlier findings revealed that math score growth was significantly larger for students in SAM implementation schools than in comparison schools (Choi et al, 2017). Although no significant reading growth difference was observed between implementation and comparison groups, schools that implemented with the highest scores on a measure of fidelity made better improvements on both reading and math while scores of matched comparison schools actually decreased (Choi et al, 2017). Readers seeking a broader description of specific practices under the SAM system may wish to examine the previous publication.…”

“…Specific interventions included evidence-based curricula and tiered instructional methods in math and reading, and such inclusive educational practices as peer-assisted learning, parent engagement practices and positive behavior interventions and supports (Sailor & Roger, 2005). Those integrated MTSS/RTI and inclusive efforts were supported by administrative leadership, family supports, and district-level supports (Choi et al, 2017; Sailor & Roger, 2005). The framework was first implemented in Kansas City, Kansas (Sailor et al, 2009); was next replicated at scale in the Ravenswood City School District in East Palo Alto, California (Sailor et al, 2006, 2009); and subsequently in a large, east coast district (Choi et al, 2017), where the present study took place.…”

“…Those integrated MTSS/RTI and inclusive efforts were supported by administrative leadership, family supports, and district-level supports (Choi et al, 2017; Sailor & Roger, 2005). The framework was first implemented in Kansas City, Kansas (Sailor et al, 2009); was next replicated at scale in the Ravenswood City School District in East Palo Alto, California (Sailor et al, 2006, 2009); and subsequently in a large, east coast district (Choi et al, 2017), where the present study took place. All these studies had similar positive trend results.…”

“…SAM pursued, as does its successor SWIFT, an equity-based definition of inclusion that shifts the unit of analysis from the general education classroom to the whole school environment (Choi et al, 2017). The tiered instructional delivery system enables this arrangement by using all available school space, personnel, and resources to accommodate small instructional grouping arrangements for students at risk (i.e., Tier 2) and one-on-one interventions without categorical segregation for students with high support needs (i.e., Tier 3) along with a strong universal preventive support layer for every student (i.e., Tier 1) (Burrello et al, 2001).…”